Vivid Entertainment, a Porn Company, is claiming
that it has been shopped a 2009 sex-tape starring Iggy Azalea (“Amethyst
Kelly”). Following the release of Vivid Entertainment’s statement, Houston-based
rapper Maurice Williams, who also happened to manage Azalea at one point, came
forward claiming he co-starred in the tape and that Azalea signed a contract
that gave him “exclusive
rights to manufacture, sell, distribute, and advertise ‘any’ recording
embodying visual images” of the Australian rapper. Azalea’s camp initially
denied both statements but then later backtracked stating that if the video was
legitimate, then all parties involved would be sued. However, to date, no suit
has been filed regarding the possible release of the tape.
Unfortunately for Azalea, the sex-tape scandal isn’t her
only legal problem. Earlier this week, Azalea
filed suit against Maurice Williams, yes… him again, alleging that he
infringed upon her copyright and unlawfully misused Azalea’s name, likeness,
voice, and trademark. Azalea’s suit comes in response to attempts by Williams
to release music recorded earlier in her career. The
suit alleges that around 2007 and 2008 Williams downloaded content from
Azalea’s computer without her permission, which included unreleased master
recordings. In response to the suit, Williams is asserting the same defense as
he did regarding the alleged sex-tape.
Since suing Williams, Azalea
has stated that the contract Williams is referring to is forged and is a
modified version of an old management contract Azalea once signed.
At the heart of this media battle is a contract clause
interpretation case that could either come out very well or very poorly for
Azalea. Public policy considerations could direct a judge to find that it was
not the party’s intent to enter into a clause that would give another
individual rights to distribute such materials, and would modify the term to
express the party’s true intent – ultimately prohibiting release of the
tape. However, if a judge doesn't feel
compelled by public policy considerations, and the contract does indeed say
‘any’ recording with visual images, then Azalea may be without any legal
recourse. It will be interesting to see if Azalea and her legal team smooth out
these tensions before trial or, instead, decide to go forward with litigating
her claims.
-
- Erica Vincent (Marketing Editor, DU SELJ)
